Suchergebnisse

The article discusses the condition of civil society in contemporary Serbia, with special emphasis on the relations between its representatives and the authorities (both at the local and state level). The main objective of the analyses is to answer the question of the position of the civil sector within Serbia's broadly understood political system. What role do both formal non-governmental organizations and grassroots non-institutionalized social movements play in this relatively young democracy? What is the attitude of the authorities to grassroots civil activities, which often manifest criticism towards the decisions and actions of those in power? These questions will constitute the central axis of my considerations in this article. The research problem indicated above is analysed on two essential levels. Firstly, the article discusses existing studies and research on the nature of civil society in Serbia and the ways in which it functions. Secondly, the author analyses the results of qualitative research carried out at the late 2018 and early 2019 among representatives of Serbian civil movements and organizations. The conclusions stemming from these analyses are presented in the final part of the article. The analyses carried out indicate the problems that face the civil sector in Serbia. First and foremost, one should draw attention to the authorities' rather negative view of the civil sector. What is also noteworthy is an extended network of connections of the authorities with the private sector as well as with right-wing, nationalist, pro-government organizations. These circumstances to a large extent hinder or even preclude dialogue (and further cooperation) between public and civil institutions.

The article presents the analysis of the relation between two concepts, namely cosmopolitan democracy and agonistic multipolar order, whose author is Chantal Mouffe, in the context of the dispute about the preferred shape of global democracy. Both approaches are presented in the literature as opposing. The main thesis of the present article is the possibility of connecting them, but according to dialectical principles. The point is not about a smooth consensus but about the fact that the contradictions between those views can be treated as a condition of their interweaving. To this aim, I use two theoretical concepts: of antagonistic cosmopolitanism by Tamara Caraus and of antagonistic global constitutionalism by Christof Royer. On this basis I claim that Mouffe's rejection of cosmopolitanism is not thoroughly coherent with her own assumptions. I acknowledge her argumentation that cosmopolitan democracy might lead to pluralism without antagonism but at the same time I suggest that Mouffe's postulate of the multipolar order can lead to pluralist antagonism without agonism. It is only the establishment of cosmopolitan institutions and rules that will allow for really agonistic and radically pluralized global politics, thanks to which it will be possible to solve the contemporary world problems effectively. For these reasons agonistic cosmopolitanism can be regarded as the most optimal variant of global democracy.

Public funds should play important role in rationalization of the social security system as they allow greater control over expenses redistribution and thus over changes in society. However, as the rule of parainsurance is not followed while creating public funds, one cannot hope for public support for fiscal burdens and for diminishing political influence on the tax collection for social expenses and social expenses itself. The lack of public support should not limit possibilities of using public funds to rationalize public finances, particularly social security.